Because we want stoopid people running our schools?

Via Digby:

Tennessee House OKs bill shielding teachers who doubt evolution, global warming

…Bill supporter Rep. Richard Floyd, R-Chattanooga, said that “since the late ’50s, early ’60s when we let the intellectual bullies hijack our education system, we’ve been on a slippery slope…”

This explains a lot.

Intellect is a terrible thing, especially when it’s used around people without any.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 253

H R 1363      YEA-AND-NAY      9-Apr-2011      12:40 AM

     QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment

     BILL TITLE: Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes

YEAS    348

Akin

Carnahan

Clay

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Luetkemeyer

NAYS    70

Long

NOT VOTING    14

Cleaver

Digby:

…I’m going to move into my car, empty out my bank account and give the money to a rich person so he’ll win the future for me. Isn’t that what all responsible families are doing right now?

Via Twitter:

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Compromise. That wasn’t so bad was it? 6 hours ago

@MBersin Michael Bersin

@clairecmc If only republicans would ever try it. | “Compromise. That wasn’t so bad was it?” #Mo 6 hours ago

@clairecmc

Mike, we shifted cuts to the Pentagon and mandatory spending and saved Title X. No one is thrilled, but it’s called compromise. 6 hours ago

Via Joan McCarter at DailyKos, Atrios has an interesting thought:

if @clairecmc and gang feel “duped” perhaps they should take all spending cuts off the table. #justathought #learntobargain

McCarter adds:

If we’re gonna shut down, then take those cuts off the table and start from scratch.

Damn straight. If we have to go through a government shutdown, we shouldn’t have to reward the GOP for their boneheadedness in the process – particularly since the cuts they have  finagled so far have the potential to do lots of harm without affecting the deficit even slightly. Nobody should have to suffer because a few idiots confuse symbolic gestures with the hard work of government – hear that, Jim Lembke?.

But then, we get back to McCaskill who is singled out by Atrios – and who so far deserves credit for her response to the GOP granstanding. However, it’s hard to forget how in the past she hasn’t been able to stop bawling “me too” at the top of her lungs whenever the GOP pulls out its deficit smoke and mirrors. Which brings us to what Duane Graham of the Erstwhile Conservative has to say about the Democrats’ negotiating skills in general:

I heard Steny Hoyer, the Democrats’ Number Two in the House, say

I think we’re very close. I think we’ve come 70 percent of the way in terms of dollars. That’s a long way to go in trying to reach compromise.

You think?  Giving the other side 70% is not compromise, it’s surrender. The Democrats have given 70% and what have Republicans given in return?  Hoyer:

… you can’t negotiate on the basis that one side gives 100% and the other side gives zero.

Oh, yes you can, Steny.  That’s what Democrats have been doing. The Republicans are counting on it to continue.  Democrats have given them no reason to think otherwise.

Do you think maybe that the willingness of Democratic pols like McCaskill to go along with Republican deficit bamboozlement might have something to do with this situation?

@Atrios Atrios

if @clairecmc and gang feel “duped” perhaps they should take all spending cuts off the table. #justathought #learntobargain 3 hours ago via TweetDeck

But, of course, they won’t.

Today I got one of those emails filled with jokes that lots of folks like to pass around.  The topic was hard times and one joke caught my attention:  Times are so hard that Exxon-Mobil has had to lay off 24 congressmen.  

My response? If only we could be so lucky. Maybe we could get rid of Todd Akin, Billy Long, Sam Graves, Blaline Luetkemeyer and Vicky Hartzler, Missouri’s own House climate denialist squad, all avid students of the oil industry rule book, and, as FiredUp! reported yesterday, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, champing at the bit to vote to deny that climate change is taking place. Perhaps they’ll vote to deny that the sun comes up in the East tomorrow.

I don’t mean to say that all the members of this little group are actually in the employ of oil giants like Exxon – although Luetkemeyer does seem to be auditioning to be one of the official big oil lackeys in Congress. Many of them impress me as quite capable of patting themselves on the back for this vote because they are actually simple enough to buy into the anti-science, energy industry agenda also promulgated by more cynical players, such as our Senator Roy Blunt, who, hard times or no, will probably continue to rake in scads of big-oil money while toeing the line on climate change.  

No matter what their motivation, however, if these people are so willing to take a stand that is likely to have disastrous consequences for those of us who will still be around in twenty years – and which will certainly challenge our children and grandchildren – they ought to have some very explicit skin in the game.  It is one thing to gamble their grandchildren, but another when it comes to mine and yours, not to mention millions of children in nations whose parents never got to lobby know-nothing American politicians about what will happen to their world. Shouldn’t there be some really hard-core consequences for these fools who have decided to ignore or obfuscate scientific findings they and their patrons don’t like?

What I am proposing is that if, within, say, a twenty to thirty year period, starting this year, the predictions of climate science come to pass to such a degree that they can no longer be denied, and there has been no meaningful effort on the part of the U.S. to mitigate those effects, the legislators who stood in the way of mitigation should agree today that they will consent to step up and be tried for crimes against humanity – like the Nuremberg trials, but for climate denialists whose willful political behavior resulted in death and disruption of nations.They should have no problem with committing themselves to this course if they really believe the ersatz arguments of the denialists.

The need for such a contingency occured to me while I was reading an excellent book by the journalist Mark Hertsgaard, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. Hertsgaard, who has been reporting on climate change for the past twenty years, draws upon the findings of climate scientists to paint a picture of the world with which his young daughter will have to cope – and it’s not pretty. As he puts it on his Webpage, we will see “… Chicago’s climate transformed to resemble Houston’s; dwindling water supplies and crop yields at home and abroad; the redesign of New York and other cities against mega-storms and sea-level rise.”

Hertsgaard makes the point that, because of the willingness of clowns like Luetkemeyer, Akin, Hartzler, et al., we have already gone past the point of no return. Drastic climate change will take place and there is nothing we can do about it – except keep it from getting worse by curbing CO2 emissions (mitigation), and preparing our infrastructure to adapt to the changes already in the pipeline (adaptation). If we do nothing, then total disaster. Already, though, no matter what we do, it is a sure thing that our children and grandchildren will inhabit an increasingly difficult environment.

If, as seems likely to be the case, nothing is done, the fools who led nations down the garden path ought to have to pay the price – and if they believe in their actions, they should stand up and put themselves on the line right now and commit to going on trial if they are wrong and their criminal ignorance results in pain, suffering and death. Surely they’ll be willing to put their money, so to speak, where their mouth is. Who wants to join me in asking Akin, Long, Graves, Hartzler, Luetkemeyer, and Blunt to take the pledge that they’ll be willing to personally pay the price if the course they are committing all of us to follow proves to be disastrously wrong?

Senator Claire McCaskill via Twitter on republican intransigence over the budget:

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Remember, the compromise on the table from Ds represents a larger cut than the one originally proposed by Rep Ryan and Speaker Boehner. 5 Apr

Because they know our lazy old media will let them get away with it. They just have to go on the Today Show and blather on at one of the talking heads.

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Hard to understand why Rs insisting on cuts to education and refusing to consider the cuts that Gates has already identified in Pentagon. 6 Apr

It’s in their nature.

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Today it is becoming clear that for House Rs, this is NOT about spending cuts, but about divisive ideological fights over social issues.

7 Apr

Shouldn’t be surprised by that.

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Huge economic consequences to shut down. What happened to jobs,jobs,jobs? We can agree on $$cuts and they move goal post on social issues.

22 hours ago

Jobs? Seriously? With republicans?

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Economic losses not all about govt employees,but tax refunds not sent,home loans not closed,small business loans stopped,construction halted 22 hours ago

They really don’t care who they hurt, they just want people to blame Democrats.

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Senate Democrats say real budget cuts, not a shutdown. But GOP says loud & clear: shut it down: bit.ly/gGBPcI 19 hours ago

Because the republicans think people are too stupid to see what they’re really doing.

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Since 1976 NO federal dollars can be used for abortion.They want to shut down govt over cancer screenings & family planning services. 3 hours ago

ACORN. NPR. The big lie keeps working for them and Democrats let the republican Mighty Wurlitzer get away with it.

@clairecmc Claire McCaskill

Goal for today, doing everything possible to get clean resolution to pay our troops & not pay us,no legislating social policy thrown in. 3 hours ago

Don’t hold your breath. Just like Lucy, the republicans will pull the football away every time.

A twofer!

They never quit. Introduced last week:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BARNES.

2132L.01I                                                                                                                D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 7 of article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to public aid for education.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Section 7, article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 7, to read as follows:

           Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship. Notwithstanding this or any other provisions of this constitution, the general assembly may provide grants, scholarships, loans, or other assistance to students and to parents of students to pay for education at any accredited school of elementary or secondary education they select, including religious schools.



           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Constitution of the State of Missouri be amended in a manner consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution so as to prevent discrimination in the distribution of public funds by allowing religious people and institutions to receive aid on the same terms as everyone else?”.

[emphasis in original]

Why retain the first sentence when the second one negates it? Just asking.

And the ballot description is priceless. Who’d have thought that the oppressive majority of non-religious people in the State of Missouri could keep up their dominance of the body politic for so long until, thankfully, the sponsor noticed this problem and came up with a simple solution. Praise Quetzalcoatl.

The sponsor?:

…He previously worked as….a policy counsel and speechwriter for Governor Matt Blunt…

That inspires confidence.

This post originally appeared on the original  Blue Girl, Red State blog on April 8, 2005

April 7, 2005 marked the death of Western Civilization as we know it, at least in the state of Missouri. Get out the bugle and play “Taps” for decency, civil debate, and, well, manners.

Now as readers of this site know, the Republican party (especially the sanctimonious asshats in the Missouri Republican party) and I are not going to be joining the Mutual Admiration Society anytime soon. I feel like my entire state has just gone round the bend.

As I have made clear in previous posts, I strongly oppose the cuts to Medicaid. I believe that taxes should be raised, the roads fixed, and Medicaid expanded to cover all uninsured citizens of the state on a sliding-scale premium structure, much like the Oregon Health Plan that came to pass in the mid 1990’s, when Oregonians elected trauma surgeon John Kitzhaber as their Governor. Unfortunately, the ideas to reform health care that I brought back to Missouri from the left coast and European countries don’t have a lot of traction in these parts. Yet. But the harder the right struggles to destroy the final shreds of the social safety net, the greater our chances for progressive success when the pendulum swings our way again. But lets get back to the events of yesterday that have me railing about the rapid downward spiral of civil society:

First allow me to set the scene: Rather than ask the citizens of Missouri to pay some taxes, the Republicans in control of the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the statehouse think it’s a better idea to completely eviscerate social programs. The most eggregious, unconscionable cuts come from the Medicaid budget. Medicaid is the state/federal program that covers the poor and the disabled. Over the years many children have been able to succeed in school because Medicaid covered the eyeglasses that allowed visually challenged children to see the blackboard, the hearing aids that allowed hearing impaired children to hear their teachers lectures, and the dental visits that cured oral disease.

Governor Blunt’s plan radically restructures Medicaid, kicking an approximate 27,200 recipients out of the program entirely, and ending the requirement that Medicaid cover many of the current covered services. The services that will no longer be covered range from dental care, eyeglasses, dentures, and artificial limbs to wheelchairs, hearing aids, and hospice care for the dying. Nothing is being cut that will really hurt anyone. Who needs to be restored to whole? Shouldn’t be poor. It’s that simple. In addition to the 27,000-plus who will lose coverage entirely, an additional 23,250 poor people would have to spend significantly more before coverage for the remaining services that have not (yet) been eliminated would kick in.

Additionally, up to 47,400 children of the working poor stand to lose their health coverage if their parents simply can not squeeze 5% of their monthly income out of the family budget. An extra fifty bucks can be pretty hard to come up with for a single mother working for eight bucks an hour. Especially when gas is over $2.00 a gallon, with no end in sight. People making eight bucks an hour aren’t driving newer, more fuel efficient vehicles.

When Representative Rick Johnson, a High Ridge Democrat, rose to object to the cuts, he likened the bill to a National Geographic special that highlights how predators single out the weakest members of the herd. Several Republican lawmakers responded by making animal noises.

This was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, so to speak. This can not be allowed to pass unchallenged. I am seeking to obtain the names and districts of the offenders, along with ages, educational backgrounds, years of service, and contact information. This can not be dismissed. It demands our ire and outrage.

Speaking as a mother, if one of my adult children were entrusted by the public to represent their district in the state legislature, and then behaved in such a disgraceful and embarrassing manner, I would be in Jefferson City the next day, holding a press conference on the statehouse steps and apologizing to the residents of my state for my childs inexcusable, callous and crude behavior. I would apologize as well for my own shortcomings, because if one of my kids could do something like that, I dropped the ball raising them, plain and simple. I haven’t heard any GOP mothers apologizing, and I haven’t seen a rash of deaths attributed to shame or mortification, so maybe their mothers are giving them a pass. Maybe they are even proud of their unseemly behavior. I say to their parents “For shame!”

The plan also allows lawmakers to eliminate entirely health care assistance for many elderly and disabled people in years when state revenues are insufficient to support the services. Now, does anyone really believe the year will ever come when they will restore funding to the eliminated services? Yeah, me neither. A Busch, Hall, or Blunt heir might pine for an antique ivory back-scratcher that might have to be forgone if they actually paid their fair share of taxes, and we simply can’t take that chance.